🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 1 Oct 1998 08:53:53 +0100, Richard Vialls
<rvialls@blakcat.nospam.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <361278AE.77C4FD03@reason.org>, George Passantino
><gpassantino@reason.org> writes
>>Rather than spending billions on the speculation that
>>climate change is occurring and that we can have any impact on that
>>process, cheaper risk-reduction strategies should be viewed as higher
>>priorities. This, Green asserts, is a far better approach to
>>environmental health.
>
>So what are these cheaper risk-reduction strategies?

Remedial action on soil degradation.
Preservation of water supplies
Protection of ocean life and fisheries
Native forest flora and fauna preservation.
etc etc 

>Oh, and who are the Reason Public Policy Institute and how are they
>funded?

It does not require funding to produce a usenet posting.

OTOH, as the Reason Public Policy Institute correctly point out,
remedial action on climate change requires considerable funding.  Who
will pay for that?  The taxpayers of course.  And since this is not a
bottomless barrel (as the enviromentalists appear to believe) then
which other enviro projects are going to suffer?

So, Richard, which projects do you think are less important than
climate change?  Please produce a list of those projects you believe
should cancelled or reduced to provide funding for the costs of Kyoto.


...Greig
*************************
Note: Add .au to email me
*************************